Hyperbole over Sanity? Let’s Talk Climate Crisis

By Michelle Stirling ©2019

Originally submitted as a rebuttal to the Calgary Herald.

Dr. Vipond and Noel Keough wrote a compelling op-ed in the Calgary Herald, published Dec. 29, 2018, to end 2018 on a high note of climate hyperbole.  They talk a doomsday scenario on climate change which is straight from the Book of Revelations, tying floods, wildfires, and hurricanes to the use of fossil fuels and human-caused global warming.

As atmospheric scientist Dr. Judith Curry testified to the US Senate in 2014, “This premise is not strongly supported by the scientific evidence:  the science of climate change is not settled, and evidence reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.”

Curry goes on to explain that, “…  with the 15+ year hiatus in global warming [now some 20 years], there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability;  IPCC AR5 and SREX [Special Report on Extreme Weather] find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans, and weather extremes in the U.S. were generally worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s than in recent decades.”

Canadian climate scientist, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, past IPCC expert reviewer, World Meteorological Organization regional expert, former Environment Canada researcher, has studied extreme weather events extensively.  He concludes that extreme events are an integral part of climate and unrelated to the use of oil, gas and coal or carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. He notes that there are more uncertainties in the greenhouse gas theory of climate change today, than in 2000 when he wrote this report for the Alberta government.

Climate policy analyst, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has written two very thoughtful pieces on climate change.  “Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action” (2005) discusses confusion over the political definition of climate change and the scientific definition.  When people are talking climate catastrophe – they are referring to the political, not the scientific definition.

A second commentary, “Opening up the policy envelope,” provides insight and perspective on IPCC reports that use the wildest, least likely scenario (known as RCP8.5) to arrive at catastrophic claims and improbable ‘solutions.’

Oddly, Dr. Vipond and Keough push for rapid decarbonization – a policy that Prof. Kelly of Cambridge states would cause mass deaths. Belgian philosopher and jurist Drieu Godefridi warns that people should be wary of climate catastrophists and their humanicidal tendencies. 

Meantime, climate scientists around the world continue to find that carbon dioxide has ‘low climate sensitivity’ – meaning even a lot of carbon dioxide emissions from use of oil, gas or coal, results in a very nominal warming effect.

So, where does the climate ‘crisis’ come from?  Matthew Nisbet has revealed that billionaire foundations with vested interests in “Big Climate” have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (ENGO) worldwide. They hope to establish a global cap and trade system. For that you need willing victims for this Ponzi scheme and a price on carbon. Why a price on carbon? So that the Renewable Energy Certificates generated by the wind and solar plants become like printing money from hot air – the only trouble is, that money comes from the pockets of citizens, never to be seen again. But scare them enough…they’ll give in.

These transnational, unelected, unaccountable organizations, like the UNPRI and CDP Worldwide are climate-obsessed and employ ‘climate crisis’ as a means of gaining compliance for GHG reporting from corporations, as well as carbon pricing/cap and trade policies from governments. Citizens are not consulted – but they don’t want to live in energy poverty! Witness the Yellow Vests protesting across France.

While Dr. Vipond and Noel Keough spend much of their time demonizing Alberta oil and Albertans, they appear to have no geopolitical perspective – that our main competitor nations – the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran, are busy selling product worldwide, unhindered by pipeline Blockadia or absurd climate policies at home or abroad.

Meanwhile, our competitors laugh all the way to the bank; vulture investors snap up divested and demarketed Canadian fossil fuel shares, while we gnash our teeth in impotent, carbon-duped rage. Canadians are already paying a carbon tax equivalent of $170/t on fuel; the US pays zero carbon tax and the world average is $8/t.

As Dr. Curry has testified, carbon dioxide is not a control knob that can fine tune climate, so there is no scientific or economic justification for a carbon tax or fossil fuel phase-out.  Destroying Alberta’s economy and making people poor will not save the planet. Limited public funds can be better spent adapting to changes in climate and being prepared for inevitable wildfires, floods and storms.

Another good use of some public funds would be a special budget applied to evicting the foreign-funded Green Trade Warriors running rampant in Canada.

Michelle Stirling is the Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society. This op-ed expresses her personal views. Stirling is a member of the CAJ and AAAS.